STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 14. 8. 59 preferred by the State Government. The case relates; to the declaration of the personal property of the Jagirdar respondent. Khasra No. 1221 of village Busi, tehsil Desuri, district Pali measuring 427 bighas 2 biswas has been claimed by the respondent as his personal property on the ground that it was his khudkasht. Vide sec. 23 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act,1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) "khud-kasht lands of a Jagirdar shall continue to belong or to be held by such Jagirdar. " The Khudkasht land has been defined in sec. 2 (i) of the Act to mean any land cultivated personally by a Jagirdar and also to include any land recorded as Khudkasht, Sir or Hawala in Settlement Records and allotted to a Jagirdar as Khudkasht under Chapter IV. The learned Jagir Commissioner could have, therefore, allowed the disputed land to continue to belong and be held by the respondent as his personal property if it was found to be his Khudkasht under this definition. That the land was so found to be Khudkasht of the respondent needed therefore to be discussed, when there was any dispute in this behalf in the judgment. The learned Jagir Commissioner has stated that he held the disputed land to be the Khudkasht and consequently the personal property of the Jagirdar respondent on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer Bali had held that it was in possession of the Jagirdar and, therefore, his Khudkasht. He has, however, failed to examine whether this judgment was sufficient to categorise the disputed land to be the Khudkasht of the respondent. It was also necessary for him before relying upon this judgment to make sure whether it was an authorised one or not. The occasion for passing the order under reference by the Sub-Divisional Officer arose under the following circumstances as would be evident by the File No. 24/56 of the A. R. O. Pali, headquarters Jodhpur, and File No 658/56 of the S. D. O. Pali. The case was not one of correction in the Settlement Records. On the other hand, it arose because the respondent wanted to have the disputed land entered in his khatedari on the ground that it was his Khudkasht. He applied for the purpose to the authorities preparing the Record of Rights. It could not, however, be decided before the Record Operations came to a close. Under sec. 127 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and not under sec. 181 thereof the case was, therefore, transferred to the Collector Pali. See order sheets dated 26. 4. 57 and 10. 5. 57 on the file referred to above. THIS case on receipt in this manner by the Collector seems to have been transferred to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali, took more than two years to decide the case and then passed the order under reference. The order reads that "from the evidence produced by the respondent a number of Khasra Numbers given therein which included the disputed Khasra Number 1221 also had been in his cultivation and possession for a long time and that, therefore, he had become khatedar thereof because of his possession in St. 2012. " On this basis the respondent was, therefore, recognised to be the khatedar of the disputed land and it was directed that in the Record of Rights the land be entered as his Khudkasht. The learned Jagir Commissioner recognised the disputed land to be the Khudkasht and, therefore, personal property of the respondent. He followed the definition given in sec. 2 (i) of the Act in this behalf. It could have been quite all right if the disputed land had been so entered as Khudkasht of the respondent correctly by a competent authority. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali, is, however, so obviously an unauthorised one. He was not at all competent to try an application remaining pending at the close of the Record of Right Operations and transfer to the Collector under sec. 127 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The Notification No. F. 4 (122) Rev/b/59, dated 16. 9. 60 also authorised the Sub-Divisional Officer to try the cases transferred to the Collector under sec. 181 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act remaining pending at the close of the Settlement Operations above. There is no Notification under which powers have been delegated to the Sub-Divisional Officers to try cases transferred on the close of the Record Operations under sec. 127 also. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali relied upon by the learned Jagir Commissioner being thus an unauthorised one, his judgment also becomes wrong. The learned Jagir Commissioner has, therefore, held the disputed land to be the private property of the respondent without any legal basis.

(2.) IN cases of dispute and enquiry into the private property of the Jagirdars, the learned Jagir Commissioner as to act, as his is the sole jurisdiction in the matter, strictly in accordance with sec. 23 of the Act read with Rules 23 to 28 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Rules, 1954. The procedure should be fully observed and decision taken as strictly in accordance with the provisions thereof. The learned Jagir Commissioner is not found to have followed these provisions.